4.2 Article

Accuracy of volumetric measurement of teeth in vivo based on cone beam computer tomography

期刊

ORTHODONTICS & CRANIOFACIAL RESEARCH
卷 14, 期 4, 页码 206-212

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1601-6343.2011.01525.x

关键词

cone beam computed tomography; quantitative methodology; root resorption

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Authors - Wang Y, He S, Yu L, Li J, Chen S Objectives - to evaluate the accuracy of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for volumetric measurement of teeth, using micro-computed tomography (Micro-CT) as the reference standard. Setting and Sample Population - The Department of Orthodontics at Sichuan University. The sample consisted of 27 maxillary and mandibular premolars of 15 patients, planned to be extracted for orthodontic treatment. Material and Methods - The 27 teeth were subjected to standardized CBCT scanning before extraction and Micro-CT scanning after extraction. From CBCT data, teeth were tissue segmented and then three-dimensionally (3D) reconstructed, while from Micro-CT data, teeth were 3D reconstructed directly. Tooth volumes were then calculated. The intra-observer repeatability and reproducibility of two observers and the overall between-instrument agreement of the measurements were evaluated using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) and concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), respectively. Results - The intra-observer repeatability was high for both observers. ICCs were 0.999 and 0.998, respectively. The reproducibility of the two observers was also high (ICC, 0.740). The overall between-instrument agreement of the measurements was good, and CCC was 0.993 and its lower 95% confidence interval was 0.989. Conclusions - The accuracy of the CBCT method for volumetric measurement of teeth in vivo is comparable to the Micro-CT method in vitro. The CBCT method has the potential possibility to be applied in studies on root resorption associated with orthodontic force. Further study is needed to prove the sensitivity of the method.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据